Post #1973399

2026-02-26 21:27 UTC

@leeloo pretty sure that's a fallacy, kinda like "a sculpture is just stone, therefore it can't be beautiful", or "a cell is just a bunch of proteins, therefore it cannot be a living creature". Now, I'm not saying a huge database of probabilities can be intelligent (I hope it can't), just that I think a better argument is needed why in the case of a database of probabilities, what it's made of prevents it from being intelligent.

Replies (2)

@leeloo@chaosfem.tw 2026-02-26 21:47

@wolf480pl You would have to redefine intelligence for asking whether a list of numbers is intelligent to even make sense. And your comparison is completely off. Beauty is not a property of the sculpture, it's, as they say, "in the eye pf the beholder". Some people find curves beautiful. Can a stone have curves? Yes, of course. Others may find sharp edges beautiful. Can a stone have sharp edges? Again, yes. I suggest you consider once again whether you are elevating "AI" to a god-like status.

Open ##1973400
@johntinker@hear-me.social 2026-02-27 15:59

@wolf480pl @leeloo The effect that you are noticing is because the writers of the training material were intelligence. You are seeing the reflection of their intelligence in the output of the LLM: Here is output from an LLM that describes what an LLM is, and what it is not: https://johntinker.substack.com/p/misunderstanding-as-a-commutator

Open ##1973419